Not so Mr Sarbajit. O or o, apparently the CJI himself does not think so.
Read the attached letter he wrote to the PM. (Here he goes about in a circle to get his office exempted and tries to justify it by implying that a "competent athority" cannot be a "public authority") And then just before his retirement he said: http://expressbuzz.com/nation/did-not-seek-immunity-from-rti-retiring-cji/172729.html (Mind you that was just a day after that submission by Mr Kamat in the CIC) Also saw some other post regarding SC having implmented PIO/RTI Rules from Day 1. However, the SC has still not suo motu disclosed information under Sec 4(1)(b) - even nearly 5 years later. But Mr Kamat was able to wrangle "Congratulations" from the CIC WH on "implementing RTI" in the SC. God only knows on what grounds. CIC/WB/A/2010/00014 dated 18 March 2010 “In fact, both parties deserve congratulations, appellant for having agitated the subject thereby registering public interest in a matter of vital importance to the successful implementation of the mandate of the RTI Act 2005, and the Registry of Supreme Court of India for having taken a lead in an action in which many public authorities are still far from perfect.” Can any member point me to the full disclosure of the 17 items in Sec 4(1)(b) by the SC on its website ? RTIwanted --- On Fri, 5/28/10, sarbajitr <[email protected]> wrote: From: sarbajitr <[email protected]> In the present case, the CJI contends (through the Registry) that the info with him is not part of the the SC records, and that his Office (note the capitalisation) ie. this aspect of his "post" is not covered under RTI Act. Sarbajit .
